# R&J Churchills



## Lamar (Dec 12, 1997)

Does R&J use the same blend in the tubed version that they use in the untubed version? Does the tubed version just plain age better or have I gotten lucky on the tubed sticks that I have gotten?


----------



## Todd (Dec 11, 2004)

Lamar said:


> Does R&J use the same blend in the tubed version that they use in the untubed version? Does the tubed version just plain age better or have I gotten lucky on the tubed sticks that I have gotten?


Same blend.

Some say that being in the tube slows the aging process which allows the cigar to develop more complex flavors etc. I dont know enough to say if they taste better or not.

Hopefully someone with more time under their belt can add to this to answer your question more completely.


----------



## MoTheMan (May 24, 2003)

Same blend & I personally think they taste bette!!

Min Ron Nee states, over & over again, how slow, deep, and more complex aged tubed cigars are compared with box aged ones. :w


----------



## El Rey del Mundo (Jul 11, 2004)

MoTheMan said:


> Same blend & I personally think they taste bette!!
> 
> Min Ron Nee states, over & over again, how slow, deep, and more complex aged tubed cigars are compared with box aged ones. :w


OK! So the ones Im waiting for is not that good! Typical! I know it was something good about the Tubos!!


----------



## Bruce5 (Jul 27, 2003)

I recently had a 94 tubed Churchill that was amazing, top notch. 
Previously I have had some late 90s non-tubed Chuchills that sucked. 
Appears they are the same blend. 
.
One would think that being in a tube vs out of a tube could make some difference on how a cigar would age. Sounds like Mo nailed the specifics. 
.
I know I prefer the tubos.


----------



## SVTNate (Dec 22, 2003)

I don't have any experience in the matter, but I would guess that any perceivable difference in the aging process would be realized after many years. I'd also guess that the tube acts as a buffer to humidity changes, so it's a safer bet buying aged stock in tubes because the cigars weren't as affected by any kind of drastic humidity change over the time between rolling and arriving at your doorstep.

I do know that '01 RyJ Churchills, boxes or tubed, are smoking great right now, assuming you find some without draw problems. A very creamy, delicate flavor. I'm finishing my first box of '04s (non-tubed) and they are excellent but quite a bit different. Richer, bolder flavors, that I think will age very gracefully if I can manage to keep some around for a few more years


----------



## SVTNate (Dec 22, 2003)

Bruce5 said:


> I recently had a 94 tubed Churchill that was amazing, top notch.
> Previously I have had some late 90s non-tubed Chuchills that sucked.


May be coincidence. '94 was a great year for Cuban cigars, "late 90s" could mean 99-00 which ain't so great especially for this particular cigar (in my experience).


----------



## MoTheMan (May 24, 2003)

El Rey del Mundo said:


> OK! So the ones Im waiting for is not that good! Typical! I know it was something good about the Tubos!!


I find that the dress box non-tubed to smoke a bit more medium bodied, but still very enjoyable.
By the same token, I find that the Punch Monarcas (a tubed churchill -- see picture in the Photo Gallery) is awesome.


----------



## El Rey del Mundo (Jul 11, 2004)

MoTheMan said:


> I find that the dress box non-tubed to smoke a bit more medium bodied, but still very enjoyable.
> By the same token, I find that the Punch Monarcas (a tubed churchill -- see picture in the Photo Gallery) is awesome.


Not to mention the Saint Luis Rey Churchill that you also had in Tubos... Must have been hard to find those...


----------



## MoTheMan (May 24, 2003)

SVTNate said:


> I don't have any experience in the matter, but I would guess that any perceivable difference in the aging process would be realized after many years. I'd also guess that the tube acts as a buffer to humidity changes, so it's a safer bet buying aged stock in tubes because the cigars weren't as affected by any kind of drastic humidity change over the time between rolling and arriving at your doorstep.


I don't know how true this is, but I always felt that when a cigar aged, some of the bitter resins broke down releasing ammonia, some of the volatile oils would blend together ("marry") or evaporate outright, and this helped round out the flavor & character of the cigar over time. Over time the inherent harshness of young tobacco would disappear altogether and the remaining flavor components would become more noticeable.

Tubed aging, I believe, creates an entirely different environment for a cigar. First, as you mentioned Nate, the enclosed environment causes less humidity fluctuation and allows for a more "even" aging. Second, in the tight confines of a sealed tube, volatile oils and ammonias are not as easily dissipated and tend to concentrate more around a cigar; this, I think, alters the taste of the cigar to the stronger side. Lastly, most tubes have a cedar sleeve that sits in close contact with the cigar and I think this also acts to affect the aging. Most of us here know that cedar wrapped cigars tend to have a different taste than their unwrapped brethren . . . to me this taste is milder but also a bit more cedary.

What happens in a tube though is different, and I base this on the experience of my taste buds . . . but I would love to hear from some of you LLG's out there on what your thoughts are. I believe that inside a closed tube, the cedar sleeve doesn't just act as an absorbant for the ammonias and oils coming off the tobacco, but in the closer confines that one finds inside the tube may also act as a catalyst allowing the oils & flavors to blend in new ways for a cigar. I definately notice a very different cigar when it comes from a tube vs. box aging.

Well, just my .02. Would love to hear some of your thoughts & experiences.


----------



## motortown (Jan 14, 2004)

Mo,

I think that you should send me several of each, so that I may conduct some serious testing and reviewing! :r  

John


----------



## SVTNate (Dec 22, 2003)

Mo, 

I'm not saying that there isn't a difference. I'm saying that any perceivable, smokable difference would take several years to occur.


----------



## MoTheMan (May 24, 2003)

SVTNate said:


> Mo,
> 
> I'm not saying that there isn't a difference. I'm saying that any perceivable, smokable difference would take several years to occur.


Nate,
I agree with you there, but I swear, I can detect differences even after short aging.
Actually, it doesn't matter, so long as we all enjoy the smoke!!


----------



## SeanGAR (Jul 9, 2004)

MoTheMan said:


> Nate,
> I agree with you there, but I swear, I can detect differences even after short aging.
> Actually, it doesn't matter, so long as we all enjoy the smoke!!


Based on my experience with non-tobacco agricultural products, I would expect changes that would occur relatively quickly as well, related primarily to differences in gas exchange, partial pressure of oxygen and moisture inside the tube, and other factors that are distinctly different in a cedar-lined tube with relatively little available space for gas and limited gas exchange v.s. a dress box.

SeanGAR


----------



## filly (Dec 12, 1997)

I don't have any but it would be interesting to get a fresh box of RyJ churchills and take half the box and put them immed into tubos and let them sit for about 5 years. Would be kind of a cool experiment. I may have to try this although lacking enough tubos that are empty! lol..hmmmm......


----------



## drill (Jan 1, 2000)

I smoke alot of ryj churchills
i have had many from dress box's that smoke just as well or better
than some from tubes

months and year of production along with factory has alot to do with it i believe

the tubes do tend to change the cigar some if you compare
same code cigars but preferrence of the 2 is split it depends if you want the pure romeo taste or if you want the tinge of cedar in it

they are both special cigars!

k


----------



## El Rey del Mundo (Jul 11, 2004)

I have experienced a bad draw on the Romeo y Julieta Churchills Ive had... Anyone else had this experience?


----------



## SVTNate (Dec 22, 2003)

Yup, draw problems with some from '98 to '02. I've got two boxes of '04, and not a single tight draw on any that I've smoked.

'01 can be awesome, assuming you don't get a plugged one.


----------



## cazadore (Jan 1, 2000)

RyJ Churchills are known for having a firm draw. I've had many very tight and almost unsmokeable cigars, but it remains one of my all time favorites. Although still firm on the draw, I find the TUBED ones to be draw better as a rule.

As for '04 production, your luck has been better than mine, Nate. The first '04 box I received had 11 unsmokeable (tight) cigars. The replacements were almost as bad. The THIRD time I finally got a smokeable box. Yes, stored at 63% and from a vendor beyond reproach.


----------



## Bruce (Dec 31, 1999)

When I am in the market for vintage RyJ Churchills, I will choose the tubos over dress box every time.
The reason is that the flavors and aromas are kept more intact in the tubed environment over long periods of time.


----------



## ucmba (Sep 10, 2003)

Bruce said:


> When I am in the market for vintage RyJ Churchills, I will choose the tubos over dress box every time.
> The reason is that the flavors and aromas are kept more intact in the tubed environment over long periods of time.


----------



## ju1c3r (May 14, 2004)

Do any of you have experiences with RYJ churchill from 98 (untubed)?
was it a good year, or a hit and miss?


----------



## The Prince (Apr 9, 2005)

ju1c3r said:


> Do any of you have experiences with RYJ churchill from 98 (untubed)?
> was it a good year, or a hit and miss?


I don't have any experience with this vitola from '98. However, everything else I've had from that year was superb.


----------



## SVTNate (Dec 22, 2003)

I smoked a '94 RyJ Churchill en tubo last night for my birthday. It was fantastic!

I'll definitely be picking up a box of these about 1 or 2 paychecks from now


----------



## punch (Mar 5, 2005)

The tubed RyJ Churchill is, so far, my favorite Cuban cigar. Unfortunately, I have not been able to compare it with a non-tubed RyJ. It has been my experience with other brands that being in the tube certainly does alter the taste of the cigar, and rather quickly. I have had two boxes of NC tubos that I have “split” by removing some of the cigars from the tubes and resting them in the humidor, and leaving some of the cigars in the tubes. Within two weeks I was able to tell a difference between the two. I don’t think that it had as much to do with aging as it did with humidity. The tubos were dryer than the ones that I had removed from the tube, and this seemed to make a big difference in both burn and taste (but most of you already know humidity will do that). With the two brands that I tried this with (H. Upmann and Montecristo, both DR), removing them from the tubes seemed to improve the cigar for my tastes. But since I have heard that Cuban cigars like to be kept a bit dryer than NCs, I have not removed any of the RyJ’s from their tubes, and really have found no reason to since they taste just fine as is. In fact, this may be the key as to why I have not found other Cuban cigars all that impressive. My coolerdor stays at a pretty steady 69 – 70% humidity, and this may be a bit much for my un-tubed Cuban Cohibas and Montecristos.

For what it is worth.


----------

